Would you support mandated DNA editing for public health?

Discussion in 'Opinion POLLS' started by The Mandela Effect, Aug 7, 2017.

?

Would you support mandated DNA editing for public health?

  1. Yes only anti-vax like people wouldn't and they are nuts

    1 vote(s)
    5.9%
  2. Maybe it would need long term stuides to prove that it's safe

    2 vote(s)
    11.8%
  3. No a person's freedom matters more

    7 vote(s)
    41.2%
  4. Other

    7 vote(s)
    41.2%
  1. The Mandela Effect

    The Mandela Effect Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2017
    Messages:
    667
    Likes Received:
    310
    Trophy Points:
    63
    The subject here is something that could happen in the future but with our understanding of DNA expanding along with genetic engineering expanding the human question keeps coming up. For now many feel uneasy about this possibility and even link the idea of Human DNA editing to Nazi ideals with there eugenics program to make a master race. In reality this could very easily take a "master race" type of path where instead of it being race it's based on how well a persons genes were modified.

    The question at hand here is if there were ways to modify human DNA of those already born with altered genes to combat illnesses would you support making it illegal not to get them for public health reasons?

    I would be hugely against this as I personally don't want to be genetically modified for any reason until the day I die. But that is just my own view on the subject.
     
    jay runner likes this.
  2. Crawdadr

    Crawdadr Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 10, 2009
    Messages:
    7,293
    Likes Received:
    1,495
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Well you have tainted your question by putting in the word Nazi. But lets focus on the science aspect. If you liver is failing would you say no to a new liver? Or a heart or kidneys? Of course not in order to survive you would go on the table and have some one elses DNA implanted into you.
    Now lets say before your child is born you can remove the need for them ever to need a transplant. Heart disease gene gone, check. Kidney fail chances gene gone check. Oh that cancer gene lets dump that too. But while your in there can you make my boy strong and good looking? Great thanks.
    Why would I choose to let my child have health problems and be less if I can choose for them not to? What good is created by allowing my child to have a chance at heart failure if I can stop it?
     
    Guess Who likes this.
  3. waltky

    waltky Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2009
    Messages:
    30,071
    Likes Received:
    1,204
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Studies could lead to new treatments for inherited diseases...

    'Incredible' editing of life's building blocks
    Wed, 25 Oct 2017 - The studies could lead to new treatments for inherited diseases.
     
  4. JakeJ

    JakeJ Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    May 5, 2015
    Messages:
    27,360
    Likes Received:
    8,062
    Trophy Points:
    113
    No, I oppose mandatory DNA tests except for paternity suits, convicted felons and on a limited basis with a legitimately based court order in criminal cases and investigations.
     
    Guess Who and jay runner like this.
  5. jay runner

    jay runner Banned

    Joined:
    Oct 5, 2017
    Messages:
    16,319
    Likes Received:
    10,027
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    When unreasonable seizures increase to taking DNA against a person's will without a warrant I'd say it ain't long until lights out.

    You are the rightful owner of your own bloodline.
     
    JakeJ likes this.
  6. Pollycy

    Pollycy Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2008
    Messages:
    29,922
    Likes Received:
    14,183
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    I'm not sure why you tied opposition to vaccinations, per se, to the use of DNA technology, but I could have voted "yes" except for that. Call me "an old guy", but I am very damned selective about what I allow my body to be injected with... the infamous "Swine Flu" inoculation of the 1970's that killed or paralyzed many people cured me of putting unquestioning faith in the government's proclamations about the safety of all such injections. My right thumb was numb for four months after they shot me up....

    I accept vaccinations for things like pneumonia, hepatitis, etc., but I never, EVER have "flu shots". And, so far, thank God, I have never had the flu since I quit getting those shots....

    That said, yes, you are right. Advanced genetic engineering will be very mainstream, and remarkably beneficial, but it probably won't be accepted for at least another 50 years, or until the world-wide 'shadow-government' is able to establish complete control over the whole planet (a la "1984"). For better, or worse, yes, "Big Brother" will breed a physiologically better human platform, and, it will breed-out the inferior or defective ones....
     
    Last edited: Nov 1, 2017
    JakeJ likes this.
  7. MississippiMud

    MississippiMud Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 27, 2015
    Messages:
    1,544
    Likes Received:
    381
    Trophy Points:
    83
    In today's world given our current level on the evolutionary scale i have to say no. We don't have a high enough sense of self awareness and responsibility to be able to do this responsibly.
     
  8. ESTT

    ESTT Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 10, 2017
    Messages:
    1,150
    Likes Received:
    276
    Trophy Points:
    83
    I would say yes, assuming that in this scenario I supported the government's reasons for doing so. I tend to see many unfavorable neurological and biological traits in human beings that would keep the species from fitting into my ideology. For example, in addition to the many illnesses, I see many issues such as far too many neurological differences between the two genders (as well as severe strength disparities). There have to be differences, of course. But I feel that we can "scale down" on a select few of those.
     
    Last edited: Nov 5, 2017
  9. HereWeGoAgain

    HereWeGoAgain Banned

    Joined:
    Nov 11, 2016
    Messages:
    27,942
    Likes Received:
    19,979
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I suspect The Perfect 46 hit closer to the mark. It is a serious treatment of the potential to identify the risk for genetic anomalies as a normal part of dating. The idea being, we don't engineer genetic diseases away, we breed them out of society.

    I guess you could call it intelligent design, :) or intelligent selection, as opposed to natural selection.

    https://med.stanford.edu/news/all-n...es-ethical-dilemmas-of-genetic-screening.html

    How long before places like China make this mandatory?
     
    Last edited: Nov 5, 2017
  10. Guess Who

    Guess Who Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2014
    Messages:
    3,074
    Likes Received:
    1,189
    Trophy Points:
    113

    Well the Aske-nazi's can't help themselves from being nazi's thinking they are the most intelligent, chosen etc..:confusion: I don't think it is DNA rather more like religious brainwashing and mental illness, a false feeling of graduer.
    Lets not forget Frankenstein was one of them.:eek: So no I would not want to be a lab rat. :hiding:
    . Like I come here this morning thinking I'll get away from hot topics, so I come into' opinion threads ' about DNA and first post I see is Askenazi victimhood.:deadhorse:.

    I took my first and last flu shot in 1974 or 75. Probably still cruising around in my bloodstream now but don't want no more. o_O . Use to get tetnus shot but they have added to that now too.
    :buggered:
     
  11. Guess Who

    Guess Who Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2014
    Messages:
    3,074
    Likes Received:
    1,189
    Trophy Points:
    113

    Yea just take a good look at what they done to our food. GMOed it to where it isn't even the same thing anymore. And we want these mad scientist to mess up our gene pools too, no thank you.
     
  12. Guess Who

    Guess Who Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2014
    Messages:
    3,074
    Likes Received:
    1,189
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Just imagine the possibilities. Some nazi says your DNA says you have a hate gene in you so you need to be locked up or exterminated before you hurt somebody.
     
  13. wgabrie

    wgabrie Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    May 31, 2011
    Messages:
    13,830
    Likes Received:
    3,054
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Well, I have schizophrenia so not wanting to pass this on to my children DNA manipulation is a must before I have children. And while I'm at it I want to make them live forever young for a million years, and be the smartest, best looking, and super human as much as I'm allowed to do. I want them to have every leg up in the world.

    But I don't think DNA manipulation should be mandatory.
     
  14. Pollycy

    Pollycy Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2008
    Messages:
    29,922
    Likes Received:
    14,183
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    .
    Whether it's done in an ethical or unethical way, DNA manipulation will have to be adopted because of a perceived need for "resource-management", if nothing else. Simply put, population pressures and competition for increasingly scarce resources will make it mandatory that we 'improve' human beings as much as possible.

    In other words, we will need to become more 'efficiently-healthy', so that each of us can contribute more while using less. Disease and disability are inefficient, costly, and inconvenient -- a burden on society. You can see my 'tongue-in-cheek' bulging at this point, but you probably get the idea. Breed a better human being and it will produce more, cost less, give less trouble, incur fewer emergency expenses, and be less likely to cause social upheaval....

    On the other hand, why shouldn't we breed-out diseases, genetic defects, DNA defects, disabilities, and other factors that ruin people's entire lives...? Truly, a two-edged sword....
     
  15. Ronstar

    Ronstar Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 19, 2013
    Messages:
    93,457
    Likes Received:
    14,675
    Trophy Points:
    113
    force people to receive free gene editing to turn off predispositions towards diseases and conditions that may cause costly medical care?

    sure why not.
     
  16. Ronstar

    Ronstar Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 19, 2013
    Messages:
    93,457
    Likes Received:
    14,675
    Trophy Points:
    113
    i dont believe we will ever be able to change a person's DNA beyond early in utero.
     
  17. Aleksander Ulyanov

    Aleksander Ulyanov Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2013
    Messages:
    41,184
    Likes Received:
    16,180
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Why does force have to enter into the question at all?

    If free gene-editing is ever offered I'll certainly take it.

    If you don't want it, that's fine too. Let your kid have mental retardation, cystic fibrosis, whatever, that's more for mine
     
    Sallyally likes this.
  18. Pollycy

    Pollycy Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2008
    Messages:
    29,922
    Likes Received:
    14,183
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    You are probably right... I can see people doing this since it would be 'free'. The government could make a good case that it is fair to require 'gene-editing' -- especially in cases where government has to pay for a person's medical care (Medicaid), or pay "subsidies" (more welfare) for a person's health insurance.
     
  19. Battle3

    Battle3 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2013
    Messages:
    16,248
    Likes Received:
    3,012
    Trophy Points:
    113

    Its one thing to remove cancer, its quite another to breed people for efficiency. Particularly when "efficiency" is determined by the govt.
     
  20. Pollycy

    Pollycy Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2008
    Messages:
    29,922
    Likes Received:
    14,183
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    True. And, we could also agree that people who cannot develop cancer will very likely be more efficient, produce more in their lifetimes, pay more taxes to the government, and require less overall medical expense (especially, in the U. S., where our government is having to pay for a lot of people's healthcare costs)....

    [​IMG]. "I want access to YOUR genes! In return, you don't have to worry about cancer, etc."
     
  21. Battle3

    Battle3 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2013
    Messages:
    16,248
    Likes Received:
    3,012
    Trophy Points:
    113


    The govt does not pay for anything, taxpayers pay for everything. Whether the govt prints, borrows, or taxes, ot all comes back on the shoulders of the few who pay taxes.

    But the real issue is that once the govt decides what is "efficient" and who must have their DNA "fixed", it will be disaster. Need more mine workers? A few DNA tweaks on 100 people and you have mindless diggers.
     
  22. Pax Aeon

    Pax Aeon Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 2, 2015
    Messages:
    7,291
    Likes Received:
    432
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Gender:
    Female
    `
    `

    In cooperation with a nation-wide eugenics program, that might work.
    `
     
    Last edited: Nov 15, 2017
    Sallyally likes this.
  23. TheDonald

    TheDonald Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 16, 2017
    Messages:
    1,480
    Likes Received:
    211
    Trophy Points:
    63
    No human understands how DNA does what it does, thus no one can say how it works and it follows that no human can edit it properly without this knowledge
     
  24. Arjay51

    Arjay51 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 26, 2015
    Messages:
    4,216
    Likes Received:
    724
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Didn't the Germans in WWII try this? How did that work out?
     
  25. Pollycy

    Pollycy Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2008
    Messages:
    29,922
    Likes Received:
    14,183
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Yes, I know. It's a two-edged sword. With the wrong people in government, it would be a horror of almost unimaginable possibilities.

    Yes, you're right. It's a two-edged sword. The Nazis were vicious, unprincipled, and very crude. They saw nothing wrong with destroying people to satisfy their intellectual curiosity about disease, genetics, etc., and that is a thing that must never be tolerated again....
     

Share This Page